A Note for Nullification Deniers

Misunderstanding the history of nullification is so commonplace that when I come across a news article or commentary (the lines are so often blurry) that gets things half-right, I’m pleasantly surprised. This is quite rare. Easily the top three misconceptions of nullification relate to the Nullification Crisis, the War Between the States, and segregation. More often than not, journalists and “enforcers of public opinion” will refer to these cases when covering the “N” word.

As it typically goes, the Nullification Crisis is described as the origin of nullification. In 1832 the state of South Carolina passed a “nullification ordinance” which sought to block a tariff that was harming trade for the Palmetto State. Our Betters typically see fit to remind us that the ordinance failed after president Andrew Jackson threatened to invade the state.

The lesson we’re apparently supposed to take away is that might makes right, and that when a dispute arises, whichever side can intimidate the other into submission has the moral high ground. What’s conveniently left out from these little nuggets of Official History is that before South Carolina could call Old Hickory’s bluff, the tariff was reduced. Note also, that nullification predates this episode by more than thirty years. Indeed, it was in the prior century that states first began to push back, at the suggestion of Thomas Jefferson.

Speaking of might making right, there’s the War Between the States. It’s often associated with nullification as well, pejoratively. This is indeed peculiar, since it was northern states which nullified federal law and not the south, as so often is reported. If you’re slightly puzzled as to why this is supposed to be a mark against nullification, don’t worry, you’re not alone.

Even though the argument makes no sense logically, it is invoked as an easy way of introducing race relations where it otherwise doesn’t fit. It’s the nuclear option for charlatans, who’s only hope is ad hominem.

Then there’s desegregation. Lest I fall victim to the fallout from some sophist wielding epithets of “racist,” allow me to point out while race is involved in this issue, for the purposes of arguing over nullification, it’s quite irrelevant. For a more thorough explanation, see here.

This is the end of the road for nullification, to hear its deniers tell the story. A bunch of southerners in various legislatures tried to ignore the opinion of the court regarding Brown v. Board of Education, so the court issued another opinion indicating that in fact, the original ruling must be complied with. Instead of throwing down the gauntlet, those states acquiesced.

Big deal. All it proves is that on this particular issue, the court’s opinion prevailed. Appealing to the court’s opinion on any issue involving nullification as proof that it’s not allowed is begging the question. The essence of nullification is that the states don’t care what’s allowed and what’s not; they’ll decide the matter and any panel of lawyers is irrelevant.

As we’re seeing, nullification is a more powerful tool now than ever. At its inception two states used it for a single purpose — opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Since then a handful of states have used it for various purposes, among them opposition to war, kidnapping and slavery, and integrating government schools. A halfway decent record, I suppose.

Become a member and support the TAC!

Today it’s being actively used by dozens of states to block everything from national ID cards and weed laws, to civilian gun control and indefinite detention. Nullification is blocking implementation of the Affordable Care Act in some states, and bills to block the TSA and prohibit the use of drones domestically are making their way through state houses as I write.

Not only is nullification being used, it’s widely accepted by the general public as a means to limit the power of the federal government. This information isn’t hard to come by, either. Wikipedia’s entry for “nullification” neatly explains each of those three misconceptions mentioned above, and links to additional information are there for anyone halfway interested.

So for those looking to dismiss nullification on historical grounds, have at it. Just make sure you check the Internet before submitting something that is easily contradicted with a cursory reading of “the free encyclopedia.”

Easily the top three misconceptions of nullification relate to the Nullification Crisis, the War Between the States, and segregation. More often than not, journalists and “enforcers of public opinion” will refer to these cases when covering the “N” word.

Easily the top three misconceptions of nullification relate to the Nullification Crisis, the War Between the States, and segregation. More often than not, journalists and “enforcers of public opinion” will refer to these cases when covering the “N” word.

State Nullification is vital to simply “withdraw our consent” and tell the government to get back into its cage. However, we MUST go one step further, as many states have been introducing unconstitutional laws, and state courts are involved as well. We MUST act locally, county by county, and apply nullification to ANY laws or statutes, federal OR State, that conflict with liberty and rights. That is why we are close to implementing what we are calling a “Liberty Zone.” Simply put, our county will be designated as a “Liberty Zone,” and we will defend the constitution against federal or State encroachment by ANY agency not authorized by the Constitution or its 18 enumerated powers, PERIOD!

We were able to get almost 400 signatures from local residents, in just a few hours of effort, who loved the idea of a “Liberty Zone” and are willing to defend it, regardless of what group they support. We MUST unify our efforts around this simple concept, or one like it. libertyzone.org and thecountyguard.org are two sites to visit and begin implementing local “change.”

@countyguard We’re kind of screwed when the county is populated by liberal idiots who know nothing nor do they care that they are ignorant. Couple that with county sheriffs who don’t know their behinds from a hole in the ground and you have a most offensive place in which to exist.

To better your life, you must be willing to give something up. If you want to be healthier, you have to be willing to give up unhealthy food, or the time it takes to exercise. To be weatlthier, you must be willing to give up some things that you spend money on, or the time it takes to earn more money. To be freer, you must be willing to give up some of the comforts you are used to where you currently are, or the time it takes to do something about the oppressor.
“Freedom is Not Free” does not apply only to those serving in the military.

I read the linked blog and I’m not sure what I’m supposed to get from it. I also went to Wikipedia where I found the following:
During the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s, Madison denounced as unconstitutional the concept of nullification of federal law by a state.[37][38][39] Madison wrote, “But it follows, from no view of the subject, that a nullification of a law of the U. S. can as is now contended, belong rightfully to a single State, as one of the parties to the Constitution; the State not ceasing to avow its adherence to the Constitution. A plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet to anarchy, cannot be imagined.”
That doesn’t sound like much of an argument in our defense. Can I get some help here?

Nullification by its very existence refutes the idea that it needs permission from the tyrant. If the oppressed has permission then it is no longer nullification, it is just self determination Nullification and permission are extreme opposites.. Our first document said “– whenever any Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to Alter or Abolish it, and it institute new Government—“. If our founding documents recognize the Right of the People to secession , then the Right of the People to the lessor act nullification is obvious.

Repeal of the 17th Amendment is vital to the health of federalism. Civics textbooks continue to portrat the 17th Amendment as a progressive measure giving the people direct representation. However, the underlying reality of the 17th Amendment as a rung on the ladder to dismantling the basic structure of federalism by denying the legal entity of State Government from direct representation is never mentioned.
Nullification then remains the one legal firewall of State authority exert influence in what appears to be an otherwise dying federal system.

Easily the top three misconceptions of nullification relate to the Nullification Crisis, the War Between the States, and segregation. More often than not, journalists and “enforcers of public opinion” will refer to these cases when covering the “N” word.

No what we need is to take OUR TAX dollars out of government schools, and put them where they belong, into the hands of parents so they can go find the best place to educate their own children !! We let the government destroy our education system and waste our hard earned money for far too long!! Enough is enough !!!

I can’t remember any one denomination trying to rule over others in school as I was growing up. Since schools have taken hands off on Baccalaureate, our students stepped up and coordinate it with a non-denominational attitude.
There is nothing denominational about Ten Commandments or Bible. Compare KJV with Catholic Bible. Difference is very insignificant.

Separation of Church and state is not even in the constitution…. it was merely an idea expressed from one representative to another in a letter. And when read in its full meaning it was to limit the federal government … not expand it. As usual, it was taken out of context, misapplied, and directed so as to give the federal government more power instead of less.

Article VI..This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof: it says “THIS” In other words, the Federal Government cannot make any laws outside the boundries of the Constitution, if they try, the States have the Right to ignore the law and use force to protect the people if the feds try enforcing.